4 ms·

Or people enjoy soda because the of insane amount of sugar put in it by people intending to make the product as addictive as possible. Remove the sugar from so

Or people enjoy soda because the of insane amount of sugar put in it by people intending to make the product as addictive as possible. Remove the sugar from soda and you have awful-tasting water. Sugary drinks are no better than cigarettes, and the people pushing them know exactly what they are doing and what they are exploiting.

chrisseaton 7y ago
You can make anything sound absurd by reducing it to its ingredients like that. And anyway, value is determined by the buyer. You can't say as an individual that something has no value to society.
- ionised 7y ago
  > And anyway, value is determined by the buyer. I disagree. You can make anything seem valuable by defining value in the most cynically narrow terms possible like that. By that same logic, heroin has great value in society, and hitmen and we shouldn't be trying to stop these things. However we do, because the popularity of the product is no measure of its contribution to society. Continue on with that logic and literally everything is valuable, making it a meaningless distinction. > You can't say as an individual that something has no value to society. I can and did. It's an opinion not an assertion. If you are creating a need that didn't already exist, like targeting people's predisposition to addictions to substances like sugar, or nicotine, or heroin, then I posit that you have created no real value whatsoever.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    By your logic music and art have no value to society, because there was no need for those until they were invented, someone could assess their value as zero, they consume natural resources which harms all of us, and the people could be doing something more productive (by some unstated metric of yours) instead. You just don't enjoy soda. There's nothing wrong with other people enjoying it. Either in moderation, or irresponsibly in our opinion, which is their own business. Other people don't enjoy music and art and should probably think they should be done away with you like you with soda.
    - ionised 7y ago
      Art and music aren't produced with the intention of fostering addictions in people. They don't cause death and suffering simply by being sold, or even being abused (how would one abuse art or music?). So no, that's not my logic at all. There was already a need for art and music. There wasn't already a need for Coca Cola and Lucky Strikes.
      - chrisseaton 7y ago
        I don't accept that sodas are either. I think they're a honest product. They aren't healthy, but they don't pretend to be. They say very clearly what they contain and they're marketed as a treat. They are optimised to be as delicious as possible I'm sure, but singers also optimise their songs to be as pleasing as possible so you'll buy their next album.
        ionised 7y ago
        > hey aren't healthy, but they don't pretend to be. They say very clearly what they contain and they're marketed as a treat Soda manufacturers include this information because they are required to by law. It is in their interests to hide this information from you. Lobbysists for junk food manufacturers are always hard at work fighting against these kinds of regulations, because you knowing what is in their product is harmful to their bottom line, because they are selling you what amounts to a mild poison. People fought to get this labelling required by law. These companies aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. > They are optimised to be as delicious as possible I'm sure, but singers also optimise their songs to be as pleasing as possible so you'll buy their next album. The difference being my health isn't harmed by a pop singer trying to improve their voice. Nor are they creating a need or addiction to music that didn't already exist. There has always been a need for music among humans. Even tribal war drums count as music. I'll concede that most pop music is lowest-common denominator crap manufactured and marketed to as as wide a demographic as possible for no other reason than profit, but really, pop music is such a small part of the entire musical landscape. Even if it were, what damage to people is pop music causing? What addictions is it fostering? You could debate about the dumbing down of music that manufactured pop music encourages, but we are talking about actual harm caused by fostering addictions here, which things like sodsa and cigarettes do, as a result of their being addictive as well as damaging to health. The pop music analogy isn't a very good one, because music doesn't damage your health by encouraging your addiction to substances harmful to your health.

chrisseaton 7y ago

You can make anything sound absurd by reducing it to its ingredients like that. And anyway, value is determined by the buyer. You can't say as an individual that something has no value to society.

ionised 7y ago
> And anyway, value is determined by the buyer. I disagree. You can make anything seem valuable by defining value in the most cynically narrow terms possible like that. By that same logic, heroin has great value in society, and hitmen and we shouldn't be trying to stop these things. However we do, because the popularity of the product is no measure of its contribution to society. Continue on with that logic and literally everything is valuable, making it a meaningless distinction. > You can't say as an individual that something has no value to society. I can and did. It's an opinion not an assertion. If you are creating a need that didn't already exist, like targeting people's predisposition to addictions to substances like sugar, or nicotine, or heroin, then I posit that you have created no real value whatsoever.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  By your logic music and art have no value to society, because there was no need for those until they were invented, someone could assess their value as zero, they consume natural resources which harms all of us, and the people could be doing something more productive (by some unstated metric of yours) instead. You just don't enjoy soda. There's nothing wrong with other people enjoying it. Either in moderation, or irresponsibly in our opinion, which is their own business. Other people don't enjoy music and art and should probably think they should be done away with you like you with soda.
  - ionised 7y ago
    Art and music aren't produced with the intention of fostering addictions in people. They don't cause death and suffering simply by being sold, or even being abused (how would one abuse art or music?). So no, that's not my logic at all. There was already a need for art and music. There wasn't already a need for Coca Cola and Lucky Strikes.
    - chrisseaton 7y ago
      I don't accept that sodas are either. I think they're a honest product. They aren't healthy, but they don't pretend to be. They say very clearly what they contain and they're marketed as a treat. They are optimised to be as delicious as possible I'm sure, but singers also optimise their songs to be as pleasing as possible so you'll buy their next album.
      - ionised 7y ago
        > hey aren't healthy, but they don't pretend to be. They say very clearly what they contain and they're marketed as a treat Soda manufacturers include this information because they are required to by law. It is in their interests to hide this information from you. Lobbysists for junk food manufacturers are always hard at work fighting against these kinds of regulations, because you knowing what is in their product is harmful to their bottom line, because they are selling you what amounts to a mild poison. People fought to get this labelling required by law. These companies aren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. > They are optimised to be as delicious as possible I'm sure, but singers also optimise their songs to be as pleasing as possible so you'll buy their next album. The difference being my health isn't harmed by a pop singer trying to improve their voice. Nor are they creating a need or addiction to music that didn't already exist. There has always been a need for music among humans. Even tribal war drums count as music. I'll concede that most pop music is lowest-common denominator crap manufactured and marketed to as as wide a demographic as possible for no other reason than profit, but really, pop music is such a small part of the entire musical landscape. Even if it were, what damage to people is pop music causing? What addictions is it fostering? You could debate about the dumbing down of music that manufactured pop music encourages, but we are talking about actual harm caused by fostering addictions here, which things like sodsa and cigarettes do, as a result of their being addictive as well as damaging to health. The pop music analogy isn't a very good one, because music doesn't damage your health by encouraging your addiction to substances harmful to your health.